----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Zelený" <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: "Ralf Corsepius" <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 3:53:39 PM > Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum > > On 10. 4. 2015 at 15:29:02, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On 04/08/2015 08:41 AM, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > On 7. 4. 2015 at 17:53:42, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >> On 04/07/2015 05:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:38:57 -0500 > > >>> > > >>> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 10:22:25 -0300, > > >>>> > > >>>> Paulo César Pereira de Andrade > > >>>> > > >>>> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> I had also switched back to yum in rawhide due to --skip-broken, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>>> in a few updates not even needing it (I would first see what is > > >>>>> broken, and if not something "vital", use --skip-broken), while dnf > > >>>>> would just fail with cryptic messages. I can keep up if kde or gnome > > >>>>> is broken, or some other stuff that does not prevent boot and a > > >>>>> functional system. > > >>>> > > >>>> dnf really does need --skip-broken like support if it is to replace > > >>>> yum. yum can be a lot faster than the needed work around to get dnf > > >>>> to work equivalently. I am considering going back to yum in rawhide > > >>>> rather than continuig to test dnf in rawhide because of this issue. > > >>> > > >>> dnf's default behavior is like yum with --skip-broken already. > > >> > > >> WHAT? > > >> > > >> --skip-broken is a band-aid to work around packaging mistakes and bugs > > >> and NOT be the default. > > >> > > >> IMO, this kind of behavior is not helpful and therefore should be > > >> reverted. > > > > > > This behavior is actually helpful, as it doesn't bother users with a > > > bunch > > > of broken deps messages they usually don't fully understand (check out > > > how many of these bugs were filed against yum over the years). > > > > I vehemently disagree: Users having been seeing the symptoms of bugs. > > Now you are lying and cheating, pretending their systems would be OK in > > situations their systems are broken (and potentially vulnerable). > > > > I can not see anything helpful in this behaviour and am not impressed. > > Their systems are not broken (dnf does not install the broken packages), the > repos are broken. I still maintain my opinion that users should not fix > problems of the distribution chain unless they explicitly don't want to, nor > they should see them unless they explicitly don't want to. I believe Ralf meant that the systems are broken in the sense that they don't have the latest version (aka the bug-fixed version) of the given package installed. > Displaying a list of packages that could not be installed because they have > some problems might be ok but that's where I would draw the line. > > > > Putting the opinion of myself and the dnf team aside, I'd like to point > > > out > > > that the information you want is still available - dnf check-update will > > > show you all the updates, even those that have broken deps. Running this > > > command right after dnf upgrade will list you those that could not be > > > installed. > > This is similiarly stupid. > > > > With the dnf behavioral change > > - dnf needs to inform users about the broken packages by default > > - dnf now needs an option which does the opposite to --skip-broken > > (--no-skip-broken). > > > > I am very sure you'll see a similiar amount of mails related to broken > > packages as before. > > To be honest with you, I haven't seen a single one in dnf. If you find it, I > will rest my case. > > Thanks > Jan -- Radek Holý Associate Software Engineer Software Management Team Red Hat Czech -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
